Try deactivation again

[h-vetinari]

This was first merged in #93, then reverted in #96, reapplied a couple months later in #95 (while being more conservative with unsetting values that might still be needed), and then reverted again pretty much immediately in #99. Xref #94

Given this history here, I think it would make sense to publish these builds to a separate label first and test them on feedstocks that previously were affected. Happy to do this on a separate branch, if desired.

[conda-forge-admin]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe/meta.yaml) and found it was in an excellent condition.

I do have some suggestions for making it better though...

For recipe/meta.yaml:

• ℹ️ The recipe is not parsable by parser conda-souschef (grayskull). This parser is not currently used by conda-forge, but may be in the future. We are collecting information to see which recipes are compatible with grayskull.
• ℹ️ The recipe is not parsable by parser conda-recipe-manager. The recipe can only be automatically migrated to the new v1 format if it is parseable by conda-recipe-manager.

_{This message was generated by GitHub Actions workflow run https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge-webservices/actions/runs/20689223793. Examine the logs at this URL for more detail.}

[isuruf]

What's different between this PR and #95?

[h-vetinari]

What's different between this PR and #95?

I tried to add a test for the failures seen with previous attempts in 9a2f5af (together with conda-forge/clang-win-activation-feedstock#59), but it did not fail as expected. I haven't had time to investigate what difference exists between this test and the failures at the time (or whether the failure has disappeared)